Re: [GreenYes] Re: #3-7 plastics at curbside

[Pat Franklin <pfranklin@container-recycling.org>]

Peter Spendelow makes a good case for "all plastic bottle" collection,
but I am sure that Peter Anderson (where are you Peter) could make
an equally strong case against the idea.  His issue is the contamination
resulting from #3's (PVC) which look very much like #1's (PET).  Peter A.
has the exact numbers but I know it takes a very small amount of
PVC to render a bale of PET bottles unusable by fiber manufacturers and
an even smaller amount for bottle-to-bottle manufacturers.  I would think
that the contamination problem would be even greater in a bottle bill
state which would have much smaller amounts of PET in the mix.

Hopefully Peter A. will through his 2 cent into this discussion.  He's the
expert on this issue.

============================================
At 11:35 PM 2/2/02 -0800, you wrote:
>To Tim and Melissa,
>
>First, I want to say that I fully agree with the policy that you outline
>regarding collecting materials that are not recycled.  No collection program
>should ever advertise that they collect a material for recycling, and then
>throw it away.
>
>However, based in part on Oregon data, I think there might be very
>legitimate reasons to support an "all-plastic bottle" collection program.
>
>The vast majority of material collected in an all-bottle program should be
>recyclable.  PET (#1) and HDPE (#2) should all be recyclable, except perhaps
>some odd-colored PET or PET with certain barrier plastics.  I'm sure Pete
>Anderson could add a lot about this subject.
>
>However, a fair amount of the other 3-7 plastic can be recycled with #2 HDPE
>- at least in small quantities.  Polypropylene - #5 - and low density
>polyethylene - #4, both are usually acceptable in small quantities in HDPE
>bottle loads.  The reason is that all three of these are polyolefins, and
>are fairly compatible.
>
>Also, a fair amount of #7 plastic is also recyclable with #2 high-density
>polyethylene.  Much #7 plastic is polyethylene or polypropylene with barrier
>layers, but the barrier layers do not interfere much with certain recycling
>processes.
>
>This leaves #3 PVC and #6 Polystyrene as being the main problems, along with
>some #7 (all other plastic) and maybe some #1.  However, these materials are
>pretty uncommon in plastic bottles.  The Oregon Department of Environmental
>Quality conducts a regular waste composition study every two years, and
>specifically looks at the quantity of different plastic bottle and tub
>resins being disposed.  Here are results of the 1998 study for disposal of
>plastic bottles by resin in Oregon:
>
>#1 PET - 33.05%
>#2 HDPE - 59.47%
>#3 PVC - 2.86%
>#4 LDPE - 0.34%
>#5 PP -  0.89%
>#6 PS - 0.03%
>#7 Other - 2.78%
>unidentified - 0.63%
>
>Thus, the problem resins make up only about 5% of the total plastic bottles
>being disposed in Oregon, and much less than that if you look at the total
>plastic bottles generated.  Oregon is a bottle bill state, and so our
>recovery for plastic soft drink bottles (#1 PET) is very high - over 80%.
>Other PET bottles and such as water bottles and almost all HDPE bottles are
>not covered under Oregon's law though, but still many are collected through
>the Oregon curbside programs.  Most Oregon programs are "all bottle"
>collection programs, but #2s and #1s still predominate.
>
>APC has argued that when you change from a specific resin bottle collection
>program to an "all bottle" collection program, you get a general increase in
>all resins of bottles collected - not just an increase in the 3-7s.  I think
>the research they and others have done pretty much backs them up on this, so
>that a 1-7 collection program results in more recycling of the 1s and the 2s
>as well as some recycling of the 4s, 5s, and some 7s.
>
>How does this square with the issue of saying you are collecting something,
>and then throwing it away?  It is still troublesome to collect 3s and 6s and
>then dispose of them.
>
>However, if you object to any disposal, then what is your reaction to
>commingled collection systems that mix glass bottles with other materials.
>Our experience is that the recovery of glass varies widely in these
>programs, and that often more than 20% of the glass put out curbside may end
>up being disposed.  By comparison, losing 5% of the plastic bottles to
>disposal looks small.
>
>Peter Spendelow
>Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-greenyes@grrn.org [mailto:owner-greenyes@grrn.org]
>Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 8:30 PM
>To: greenyes-digest@grrn.org
>Subject: [Greenyes Digest] V2 #174
>
>
>
>[Greenyes Digest]      Saturday, February 2 2002      Volume 02 : Number 174
>
>
>
>[GreenYes] Re: #3-7 plastics at curbside
>Re: [GreenYes] Re: #3-7 plastics at curbside
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 08:49:41 -0800
>From: Pat Franklin <pfranklin@container-recycling.org>
>Subject: [GreenYes] Re: #3-7 plastics at curbside
>
>I'm sure that Peter Anderson will reply to this email.  I believe he
>did a report for the CA DOC on this very issue of "all plastic bottle
>collection".
>
>Peter, if and when you do reply can you tell us if that report
>is available on line?????
>
>===============================================
>At 11:21 PM 2/1/02 -0500, Brenda Platt wrote:
> >Does anyone know of recycling operators opposed to APC's plan to
> >encourage collection of #3-7 plastics at curbside?  Please respond
> >directly to Tim, as he's not on the listserve.  You can cc the listserve
> >and me too.
> >Thanks,
> >Brenda Platt
> >Institute for Local Self-Reliance
> >
> > >>  Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 14:02:39 -0800
> > >>  From: Tim Krupnik <tim@ecologycenter.org>
> > >>
> > >>  Hello,
> > >>
> > >  > My name is Tim and I work for the Berkeley Ecology Center
> > >recycling and education program.  I am currently working to write a
> > >resolution for the city and state to adopt combatting the American
> > >Plastics Council's motion to collect #3-7 plastics at the curbside.
> > >The general feeling here is that to present the 3-7 collections is
> > >to promote them as "recyclable," which they won't be.  This is, in
> > >our view, propaganda that mis-leads the public and makes recycling
> > >appear to be less environmentally concerned.
> > >  >
> > >>  I was informed that you might know of other municipal recycling
> > >>operations that are opposing their motion (I need to provide
> > >>evidence that this is not just a "Berkeley Thing," and that there
> > >>are reliable, concerned people in the industry opposed to the APC's
> > >>stance.
> > >>
> > >>  Might you have any information, articles, etc?
> > >  >
> > >  > Please let me know.  Thank You,
> > >  > Tim krupnik
> > >  > Plastics Task Force.
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 15:33:33 -0800 (PST)
>From: melissa terry <melissaterry@yahoo.com>
>Subject: Re: [GreenYes] Re: #3-7 plastics at curbside
>
>the city of fayetteville (northwest arkansas) also
>opposes the "all bottles" collection campaign for the
>same reasons...before someone promises to weave gold
>from straw, you need to make sure they have some
>straw.
>
>the plastics industry is responsible for their #3-7's,
>not the community.
>
>just my two cents...
>
>:}
>melissa terry
>sustainable environment educator
>city of fayetteville
>fayetteville, arkansas
>
>
>
>- --- Pat Franklin <pfranklin@container-recycling.org>
>wrote:
> > I'm sure that Peter Anderson will reply to this
> > email.  I believe he
> > did a report for the CA DOC on this very issue of
> > "all plastic bottle
> > collection".
> >
> > Peter, if and when you do reply can you tell us if
> > that report
> > is available on line?????
> >
> > ===============================================
> > At 11:21 PM 2/1/02 -0500, Brenda Platt wrote:
> > >Does anyone know of recycling operators opposed to
> > APC's plan to
> > >encourage collection of #3-7 plastics at curbside?
> > Please respond
> > >directly to Tim, as he's not on the listserve.  You
> > can cc the listserve
> > >and me too.
> > >Thanks,
> > >Brenda Platt
> > >Institute for Local Self-Reliance
> > >
> > > >>  Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 14:02:39 -0800
> > > >>  From: Tim Krupnik <tim@ecologycenter.org>
> > > >>
> > > >>  Hello,
> > > >>
> > > >  > My name is Tim and I work for the Berkeley
> > Ecology Center
> > > >recycling and education program.  I am currently
> > working to write a
> > > >resolution for the city and state to adopt
> > combatting the American
> > > >Plastics Council's motion to collect #3-7
> > plastics at the curbside.
> > > >The general feeling here is that to present the
> > 3-7 collections is
> > > >to promote them as "recyclable," which they won't
> > be.  This is, in
> > > >our view, propaganda that mis-leads the public
> > and makes recycling
> > > >appear to be less environmentally concerned.
> > > >  >
> > > >>  I was informed that you might know of other
> > municipal recycling
> > > >>operations that are opposing their motion (I
> > need to provide
> > > >>evidence that this is not just a "Berkeley
> > Thing," and that there
> > > >>are reliable, concerned people in the industry
> > opposed to the APC's
> > > >>stance.
> > > >>
> > > >>  Might you have any information, articles, etc?
> > > >  >
> > > >  > Please let me know.  Thank You,
> > > >  > Tim krupnik
> > > >  > Plastics Task Force.
> >
> > ******************************************
> >
>

******************************************
To post to the greenyes list,
email to: greenyes@grrn.org

Subscription information for
this list is available here:
http://www.grrn.org/general/greenyes.html
******************************************